> No, I mean nuclear and I would appreciate it if you would simply express disagreement rather assuming that I would hold the same opinion as you if only I knew better.

That is a fair point. I disagree with you that nuclear is an option.

> I'm very much in favor of renewables, even subsidized renewables, but nuclear power really delivers in terms of capacity and I think it's a mistake to overlook this, notwithstanding its downsides.

How do you propose the following problems with nuclear be solved:

* Long term waste disposal

* Liability/insurance

* Funding for construction costs

* Completing construction of generation units in a reasonable timeframe (<10 years)

Without answers to the above, whether nuclear delivers with regards to capacity is a moot point.

I favor using eminent domain to solve the storage problem. With Harry Reid's upcoming retirement Yucca Mountain may be practical after all. This will piss some people off but everything is sacred to someone.

The federal government has to be the insurer of last resort for the time being. I think this is a very manageable risk.

Likewise to a lesser extent for construction costs. After the current construction in GA is done I think we'll have a much better idea of where we stand; remember that's the first expansion of our nuclear fleet in ~30 years and data from that project has the merit of being pretty current in terms of logistics, technique, and environmental/regulatory constraints, making it a better model than past white elephant projects.

I'm trying exceptionally hard to put myself in pro-nuclear shoes, but I can't see the point of eminent domain, government insurance, and substantial construction times/delays when solar is already cheaper than nuclear.

I vote with my wallet; I put 6+ figures into SolarCity SolarBonds, I ride my legislators hard (showing up in person at their office to advocate for solar and wind tax credits), etc. If you believe in nuclear, I encourage you to do the same sort of activities.